Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T12:45:04.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The absorption of grave breaches into war crimes law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2009

Marko Divac Öberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article compares the concepts, scopes of application and procedural regimes of war crimes and grave breaches, while considering what role remains for the latter in international criminal law. In addition to their original conception as international obligations to enact and enforce domestic crimes, grave breaches have taken on a new meaning as international crimes, similar to war crimes. Only in few regards does the scope of application of these new grave breaches surpass that of war crimes. The procedural regime of grave breaches differs in theory significantly from that of war crimes, though less so in practice. Although it is too early to discount grave breaches, they are likely to become confined to history.

Type
Typology of armed conflicts
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 91 , Issue 873: Typology of armed conflicts , March 2009 , pp. 163 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Draper, G.I.A.D., ‘The implementation and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols of 1977’, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Vol. 164, 1979-III, p. 37.Google Scholar

2 Bryan A. Garner (ed.), Black's Law Dictionary, Thomson West, St Paul, 2004, p. 399; G.I.A.D. Draper, ‘The modern pattern of war criminality’, in Yoram Dinstein and Mala Tabory (eds), War Crimes in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1996, p. 157.

3 Georges Abi-Saab, ‘The concept of “war crimes”’, in Sienho Yee and Wang Tieya (eds), International Law in the Post-Cold War World, Routledge, London, 2001, p. 112; Michael Cottier, ‘Article 8: War crimes – introduction/general remarks’, in Otto Triffterer (ed), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers' Notes, Article by Article, Beck, Munich, 2008, p. 283; Gerhard Werle, Principles of International Criminal Law, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2005, pp. 269, 280.

4 Articles 50/51/130 of the First, Second and Third Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 omit some of these acts.

5 See note 92 below; also Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Federal Political Department, Berne, Vol. II-B, p. 115.

6 Common Article 49(3)/50(3)/129(3)/146(3) of the four Geneva Conventions; Final Record, above note 5, pp. 31–33, 133. This was left unchanged by Article 86(1) of Protocol I – see Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC/Martinus Nijhoff, Geneva, 1987, paras 3539, 3542; Michael Bothe, Karl J. Partsch and Waldemar A. Solf, New Rules for the Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1982, p. 524. See also Article 89 of Protocol I. However, the evolution of customary law has limited the option of suppressing through non-penal means ‘other breaches’ that amount to war crimes – see the text accompanying notes 92–108 below.

7 See note 47 below.

8 Final Record, above note 5, p. 85; Jean S. Pictet, Commentary, IV, Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1958, pp. 585–587.

9 Final Record, above note 5, Vol. II-A, pp. 100, 157, 177–178, 184, 349, 527, 645, 647, 673–674, 716, 718, 822; Vol. II-B, pp. 31–33, 85–87, 115–117, 132–133, 355–360, 363. See also Jean S. Pictet, Commentary, I, Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, ICRC, Geneva, 1952, p. 371.

10 Final Record, above note 5, p. 107; Pictet, above note 9, p. 360; Pictet, above note 8, p. 587.

11 Final Record, above note 5, p. 87. See also Abi-Saab, above note 3, p. 117.

12 Final Record, above note 5, p. 115.

13 According to the Philippines delegate, the proposal to adopt ‘a draft code and procedure applicable to crimes committed in breach of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols […] had met with fierce opposition from the great powers’ – see Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva, 1974–1977, Vol. IX, pp. 48–49, CDDH/I/SR.45, paras 19, 23.

14 Final Record, above note 5, pp. 85, 115.

15 Based on a textual comparison between this provision and Articles 50(1)/51(1)/130(1)/147(1) of the four Geneva Conventions.

16 Official Records, above note 13, Vol. X, p. 127, CDDH/234/Rev.1, para 77; Sandoz et al., above note 6, paras 3521–3522.

17 Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 283, CDDH/SR.44, para 18 (United Kingdom); Vol. VI, p. 293, CDDH/SR.44, para 81, and Vol. IX, p. 317, CDDH/I/SR.64, para 69 (Poland); Vol. VI, p. 294, CDDH/SR.44, paras 88, 90, and Vol. IX, p. 282, CDDH/I/SR.61, para 85 (East Germany); Vol. VI, pp. 298–299, CDDH/SR.44 (Canada); Vol. VI, pp. 305–306, CDDH/SR.44, and Vol. IX, pp. 313–314, CDDH/I/SR.64, para 49 (Yugoslavia).

18 Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 293, CDDH/SR.44, para 85, and Vol. IX, pp. 269–270, CDDH/I/SR.61, paras 4–5 (Indonesia); Vol. VI, p. 295, CDDH/SR.44, para 92 (Egypt); Vol. IX, p. 279, CDDH/I/SR.61, para 62 (Switzerland); Vol. IX, p. 280, CDDH/I/SR.61, para 69 (Netherlands); Vol. IX, p. 307, CDDH/I/SR.64, para 10 (Austria).

19 Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 292, CDDH/SR.44, para 77 (Italy); Vol. VI, p. 295, CDDH/SR.44, para 97, and p. 301 (France); Vol. VI, p. 297, CDDH/SR.44, and Vol. IX, pp. 309–310, CDDH/I/SR.64, paras 27–28 (Australia); Vol. IX, p. 19, CDDH/I/SR.43, para 18; Vol. IX, p. 25, CDDH/I/SR.43, para 49 (USA); Vol. IX, p. 46, CDDH/I/SR.45, para 11 (West Germany); Vol. IX, p. 280, CDDH/I/SR.61, para 67 (United Kingdom); Vol. IX, p. 316, CDDH/I/SR.64, para 66 (Finland); but see also Vol. VI, p. 300, CDDH/SR.44 (Egypt).

20 Ibid., Vol. IX, p. 46, CDDH/I/SR.45, para 11.

21 ‘Preparatory Committee on Establishment of International Criminal Court discusses inclusion of war crimes in list of “core crimes”’, Press Release L/2764, 26 March 1996. Similarly, ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’, A/50/22, 6 September 1995, para 73; ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’, A/51/22, 13 September 1996, para 76.

22 Press Release, above note 21; ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee’, above note 21, para 80.

23 ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee’, above note 21, paras 73, 75; ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee’, above note 21, paras 80–81; comments of the Egyptian delegate in Press Release, above note 21; United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Committee of the Whole, ‘Summary Record of the 5th Meeting’, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.5, 20 November 1998, para 71.

24 United Nations, above note 23, ‘5th Meeting’, 20 November 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.5, paras 75–76; Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, ‘Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court’, in Roy S. Lee (ed), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute – Issues, Negotiations, Results, Kluwer, The Hague, 1999, pp. 103–109.

25 United Nations, above note 23, ‘3rd Meeting’, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.3, 20 November 1998, paras 8–9, 11; von Hebel and Robinson, above note 24, pp. 109ff.

26 ‘Draft consolidated text’, A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/CRP.2, 20 February 1997, note 2; United Nations (note 23 above), ‘4th Meeting’, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.4, para 44, and ‘5th Meeting’, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.5, paras 31, 91.

27 ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee’, above note 21, para 73; ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee’, above note 21, para 81; Cottier, above note 3, p. 288; Charles Garraway, ‘War crimes’, in Elizabeth Wilmshurst and Susan Breau (eds), Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007, p. 388.

28 Michael Bothe, ‘War crimes’, in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta and John R.W.D. Jones (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, pp. 391–392; Cottier, above note 3, p. 288; United Nations, above note 23, ‘4th Meeting’, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.4, para 49.

29 Bothe, above note 28, p. 396.

30 Knut Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, p. 128.

31 Horst Fischer, ‘Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions’, in Gabrielle Kirk McDonald and Olivia Swaak-Goldman (eds), Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law: The Experience of International and National Courts, Kluwer, The Hague, 2000, pp. 69–70. His conclusions are equally valid today – see the example of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia at note 111 below.

32 Articles 50/51/130/147 of the four Geneva Conventions; Articles 11(4), 85(3) and (4) of Protocol I; Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 574–580, 586, 588–590. The author is aware of criticisms of the study, but to examine its data and methodology would be beyond the scope of this article.

33 Not to be confused with the often treaty-based nature of the primary rules of international humanitarian law, the violation of which may constitute a war crime. The statutes of international courts and tribunals define their jurisdiction over war crimes, not the war crimes themselves.

34 e.g. Ghislaine Doucet, ‘La qualification des infractions graves au droit international humanitaire’, in Frits Kalshoven and Yves Sandoz (eds), Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1989, p. 83.

35 Dörmann, above note 30, pp. 17–18, 128. See also Fischer, above note 31, pp. 81–83.

36 Article 8(2) of the ICC Statute; ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić aka. ‘Dule’, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (Appeals Chamber), 2 October 1995, para 89; see also Greenwood, Christopher, ‘International humanitarian law and the Tadic case’, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 7, 1996, pp. 280–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Neither the four Geneva Conventions nor Additional Protocol II of 1977 contain provisions relating to grave breaches in non-international armed conflict; Article 8 of the ICC Statute; Dörmann, above note 30, p. 18; Tadić, above note 36, paras 79–84 (but see Section IV of the separate opinion of Judge Abi-Saab); Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, p. 574; Boelaert-Suominen, Sonja, ‘Grave breaches, universal jurisdiction and international armed conflict: Is customary law moving towards a uniform enforcement mechanism for all armed conflicts?’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 5, 2000, pp. 63–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fischer, above note 31, pp. 78–80; Greenwood, above note 36, pp. 275–276; Sassoli, Marco, ‘La première décision de la chambre d'appel du tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie: Tadić (compétence)’, Revue Générale de Droit International Public, Vol. 100, 1996, pp. 122–124.Google Scholar

38 Guénaël Mettraux, International Crimes and the Ad Hoc Tribunals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 59; John R.W.D. Jones, The Practice of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Transnational Publishers, Irvington-on-Hudson, 2000, p. 55. On 22 September 2008, the ICTY Prosecution submitted an amended indictment in the Radovan Karadžić case, which removed the count of grave breaches.

39 Article 8(2)(f) of the ICC Statute.

40 Articles 50/51/130/147 of the four Geneva Conventions; Articles 11(4), 85(3) and (4) of Protocol I.

41 Doucet, above note 34, p. 83; see references cited in Greenwood, above note 36, note 47.

42 Greenwood, above note 36, pp. 279–280.

43 Yves Sandoz, ‘Penal aspects of international humanitarian law’, in M. Cherif Bassiouni (ed), International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, 1999, p. 408.

44 Draper, above note 2, p. 164.

45 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, p. 571; Garraway, above note 27, pp. 385–386, 389–390.

46 Cottier, above note 3, p. 283; Draper, above note 2, p. 156; Fischer, above note 31, p. 71; Bert V.A. Roling, ‘Aspects of the criminal responsibility for violations of the laws of war’, in Antonio Cassese (ed), The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, Editoriale Scientifica, Naples, 1979, pp. 212–213; Roucounas, Emmanuel J., ‘Les infractions graves au droit humanitaire’, Revue hellénique de droit international, Vol. 31, 1978, p. 132.Google Scholar

47 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, p. 568 (Rule 156); Tadić, above note 36, para 94; Dörmann, above note 30, p. 128. Abi-Saab, above note 3, p. 112, contests the existence of a general rule incriminating all serious violations of international humanitarian law.

48 Sandoz et al., above note 6, para 3621.

49 Tadić, above note 36, para 94. See also Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, pp. 569–570.

50 Abi-Saab, above note 3, p. 114. See also Meron, The Humanization of International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2006, p. 117.

51 For more examples, see Bothe, above note 28, p. 396.

52 ICC, The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, amended document containing the charges pursuant to Article 61(3)(a) of the Statute, 26 June 2008, Annex 1A.

53 Articles 50/51/130/147 of the four Geneva Conventions.

54 Articles 11(4), 85(3) and (4) of Protocol I.

55 Official Records, above note 13, Vol. IX, p. 282, CDDH/I/SR.61, para 80.

56 See above note 12.

57 Sandoz et al., above note 6, paras 493(a), 3474.

58 Bothe, above note 28, p. 392; Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, New York, 2008, pp. 57–58, 92; Gross, Oren, ‘The grave breaches system and the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia’, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, 1994–1995, p. 799Google Scholar; Mettraux, above note 38, p. 72; Gabriella Venturini, ‘War crimes in international armed conflicts’, in Mauro Politi and Giuseppe Nesi (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Challenge to Impunity, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2001, p. 103; Werle, above note 3, p. 298.

59 ICTY, ‘Čelebići case’, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Judgement (Appeals Chamber), 20 February 2001, para 422.

60 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, p. 574.

61 Cassese, above note 58, pp. 62, 73; but see Werle, above note 3, pp. 104–105, 114. The ICC case-law will clarify whether the ICC Statute departs from customary law on this matter.

62 Dörmann, above note 30, p. 39.

63 Ibid., pp. 17, 29, 128.

64 ICRC, The ICRC: promoter and guardian of international humanitarian law, available at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf (visited 8 April 2009).

65 United Nations, Member States, available at http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml, visited 8 April 2009; UN Security Council Resolution 827 (1993) on establishment of a tribunal (Former Yugoslavia), S/RES/827 (1993), 25 May 1993; UN Security Council Resolution on establishment of an international tribunal and adoption of the statute of the tribunal (Rwanda), S/RES/955 (1994), 8 November 1994; Article 25 of the UN Charter.

66 International Criminal Court, The States Parties to the Rome Statute, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties (visited 8 April 2009).

67 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, pp. 574–590; Articles 8(2)(a) and (b) of the ICC Statute; Bothe, above note 28, pp. 387, 396.

68 Articles 13/13/4/4 of the four Geneva Conventions define ‘protected persons’ in general – there are no general provisions defining ‘protected property’; Tadić, above note 36, para 81; Mettraux, above note 38, pp. 54–55, 64–71; Julian J.E. Schutte, ‘The system of repression of breaches of Additional Protocol I’ in Astrid J.M. Delissen and Gerard J. Tanja (eds), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1991, pp. 179–180; Werle, above note 3, pp. 299–300.

69 Articles 11(4) and 85(2) of Protocol I. See also Sandoz et al., above note 6, paras 493(d), 3468–3470; Bothe et al., above note 6, pp. 513–514; Fischer, above note 31, pp. 74–75; Roucounas, above note 46, pp. 86–95; Schutte, above note 68, pp. 186–187, 189, 192.

70 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić aka ‘Dule’, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgement (Appeals Chamber), 15 July 1999, paras 163–169. See also Fischer, above note 31, pp. 84–87; Quéguiner, Jean-François, ‘Dix ans après la creation du tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie: evaluation de l'apport de sa jurisprudence au droit international humanitaire’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 85, No. 850, 2003, pp. 299–303Google Scholar; Sassoli, Marco and Olson, Laura M., ‘The judgment of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 82, No. 839, 2000, pp. 743–744.Google Scholar

71 Dörmann, above note 30, pp. 28–29.

72 Ibid., pp. 17, 29–33; Bothe, above note 28, p. 391.

73 Dörmann, above note 30, pp. 17, 128.

74 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, p. 574 ff.; Mettraux, above note 38, pp. 54–55.

75 Cassese, above note 58, pp. 53–54; Eric David, Principes de droit des conflits armés, Bruylant, Brussels, 2002, pp. 660–662; Dörmann, above note 30, pp. 34–37; Fischer, above note 31, pp. 88–89; Mettraux, above note 38, pp. 42, 272–278; Werle, above note 3, p. 296.

76 See note 70 above; Bothe et al., above note 6, p. 115.

77 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, p. 573; David, above note 75, pp. 674–676. See also Mettraux, above note 38, pp. 55, 275.

78 Official Records, above note 13, Vol. VI, p. 283, CDDH/SR.44, para 20.

79 ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee’, above note 21, paras 53, 57; Dörmann, above note 30, p. 34.

80 Tadić, above note 36, para 70.

81 See David, above note 75, pp. 230–231; Robert Kolb, Ius in bello: le droit international des conflits armés, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, 2003, p. 106.

82 Article 5 of the First and Third, and Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention; Articles 3 and 75(6) of Protocol I. Article 6(3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not affect the applicability of the grave breaches regime – see note 35 above.

83 Tadić, above note 36, para 70.

84 David, above note 75, p. 236.

85 The article provided for criminal liability for persons who ‘committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war’.

86 See Sandoz, above note 43, pp. 393–401.

87 Pictet, above note 9, p. 351; Draper, above note 2, especially p. 164.

88 See Bothe, above note 28, p. 381; Meron, above note 50, p. 149.

89 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, pp. 568–621.

90 Articles 49/50/129/146 of the four Geneva Conventions.

91 Official Records, above note 13, Vol. III, p. 320, CDDH/I/304; Vol. IX, p. 51, CDDH/I/SR.45, para 35; and Vol. IX, p. 57, CDDH/I/SR.46, para 9.

92 Articles 49/50/129/146 of the four Geneva Conventions. On the use of the expression ‘hand over’ rather than ‘extradite’, see Final Record, above note 5, pp. 116–117. Additional Protocol I did not significantly change the procedural grave breaches regime of the Geneva Conventions, as evidenced in particular in the Protocol's Article 88.

93 A state's criminal legislation could meet the requirements of the grave breaches provisions ab initio. See Michael Bothe, ‘The role of national law in the implementation of international humanitarian law’, in Christophe Swinarski (ed), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles, ICRC/Martinus Nijhoff, Geneva/The Hague, 1984, pp. 302–303, 305.

94 Darryl Robinson, ‘The Rome Statute and its impact on national law’, in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta and John R.W.D. Jones (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, pp. 1860–1866; Flavia Lattanzi, ‘The International Criminal Court and national jurisdictions’, in Mauro Politi and Giuseppe Nesi (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Challenge to Impunity, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2001, pp. 180–181.

95 See note 102 below; also Garraway, above note 27, p. 391.

96 See e.g. ICC Legal Tools National Implementation Legislation Database, at http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Legal%20Texts%20and%20Tools/Legal%20Tools%20Directory/09%20%20National%20implementing%20legislation/; ICRC Database on the National Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, at http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat; Boelaert-Suominen, above note 37, pp. 89–93; van Elst, Richard, ‘Implementing universal jurisdiction over grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions’, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 13, 2000, pp. 825–836, 840, 852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Bothe, above note 93, pp. 307–310.

97 In particular, see the affirmation in the preamble to the ICC Statute ‘that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished’; see also Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969.

98 See notes 64 and 66 above.

99 The grave breaches in Articles 85(3)(c) and 85(4)(b) and (c) of Protocol I are omitted in the ICC Statute. See Dörmann, Knut, ‘War crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, with a special focus on the negotiations on the Elements of Crimes’, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 7, 2003, pp. 345, 348Google Scholar; von Hebel and Robinson, above note 24, pp. 104, 124.

100 See also Article 88(1) of Protocol I.

101 See note 94 above.

102 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, p. 607 (Rule 158); see also p. 618 (Rule 161). For a discussion of the meaning of ‘appropriate’, see Garraway, above note 27, p. 392.

103 Pictet, above note 8, p. 593. This applies equally to all four Geneva Conventions.

104 See also Article 88(2) of Protocol I.

105 Tadić, above note 36, paras 79–80; van Elst, above note 96, pp. 819–822. The obligation to judge or hand over also applies to neutral states – Final Record, above note 5, p. 116; van Elst, above note 96, p. 823; Meron, above note 50, p. 127; but see also Roling, above note 46, p. 202; Roucounas, above note 46, p. 67.

106 Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, above note 32, p. 604 (Rule 157).

107 Ibid., pp. 607–608 (Rule 158). The preamble to the ICC Statute recalls that ‘it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes’.

108 The grave breaches regime, as originally conceived, did not exclude that extradition could be directed to an international rather than a national court – Pictet, above note 8, p. 593; Bassiouni, M. Cherif, ‘Repression of breaches of the Geneva Conventions under the Draft Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949’, Rutgers Law Journal, Vol. 8, 1977, pp. 196–197Google Scholar; Cassese, Antonio, ‘On the current trend towards criminal prosecution and punishment of breaches of international humanitarian law’, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 9, 1998, p. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Elst, above note 96, pp. 844–845; Gross, above note 58, p. 794; Meron, above note 50, pp. 117–118; but see also Draper, above note 1, pp. 38, 42. When an international court has jurisdiction, its procedural regime replaces that of grave breaches – Tadić, above note 36, para 81; Gross, above note 58, p. 794; Mettraux, above note 38, p. 55; Venturini, above note 58, p. 97.

109 Cassese, above note 108, pp. 5–7; Draper, above note 2, pp. 159–161, 168; Draper, above note 1, pp. 39–42, 51; van Elst, above note 96, pp. 841, 850–853; Christine Van den Wyngaert, ‘The suppression of war crimes under Additional Protocol I’, in Astrid J.M. Delissen and Gerard J. Tanja (eds), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1991, pp. 202–205. See also note 96 above.

110 See note 52 above.

111 Kaing Guek Eav, OCIJ, Closing order indicting Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch, 8 August 2008, p. 44, available at http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/CTM/Closing_order_indicting_Kaing_Guek_Eav_ENG.pdf?phpMyAdmin=8319ad34ce0db941ff04d8c788f6365e&phpMyAdmin=ou7lpwtyV9avP1XmRZP6FzDQzg3 (visited 21 April 2009). This choice was probably due to the fact that the founding instruments give the Extraordinary Chambers clear jurisdiction over grave breaches but generally not over other war crimes (see Article 9 of the ‘Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea’ and Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers), which itself is probably due to Cambodia's greater acceptance of grave breaches of the 1949 generation.